"First Person Shooter" on DCS World

[NineLine]

We most certainly need better ground vehicle controls with more realism but as I said this wasn't necessarily the initial goal, but should be something to strive for. 

[draconus]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

I'm not here to complain...

I see it differently. With every post you take your chance to pour the hate against CA even when it's FPS wish thread.

CA value is not something objectively bad. Let the free market decide. It's not entirely true that it doesn't work in VR and it's not only module with funny bugs. Try Tomcat gear up/down for some transformers vibes.

[cfrag]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

With every post you take your chance to pour the hate against CA even when it's FPS wish thread.

CA value is not something objectively bad. Let the free market decide. It's not entirely true that it doesn't work in VR and it's not only module with funny bugs. Try Tomcat gear up/down for some transformers vibes.

Dear @draconus, I take your strong hyperbole ("every post", "hate") and sarcastic endorsement ("not entirely true", <other modules have bad bugs too>) under advisement, thank you. My point was indeed about the possibility of an FPS module for DCS where I see great potential for DCS, but also enormous risks. I'm focusing on the risks- because I think the potential is obvious to us. IMHO, creating good content in the form of hi-res maps for an FPS experience will be exceedingly difficult (perhaps until the advent of AI-assisted/procedural generation, something I've experimented with myself, and seen being employed in large-scale adventure games a la Starfield and Star Cititizen) and/or expensive, not to mention the obvious challenges for the game engine that was designed with flight in mind (example: the optimization that terrain with sub-zero altitude becomes water). My concern here isn't so much the drain on ED's (already thinly spread) resources, it's that a bad experience could backfire on DCS's overall perception.

All that aside, I'm entirely for trying out new avenues in DCS, as I am an avid DCS/ED supporter. The occasional (uh, 'every post' ) criticism is more a testament to the fact that I care deeply about all things DCS. So, FPS for DCS? IMHO very risky and has great potential. This is a wish list after all.

Edited May 1 by cfrag

[MAXsenna]

I see it differently. With every post you take your chance to pour the hate against CA even when it's FPS wish thread.
CA value is not something objectively bad. Let the free market decide. It's not entirely true that it doesn't work in VR and it's not only module with funny bugs. Try Tomcat gear up/down for some transformers vibes.

Nah! It's not hate to be honest. Cfrag actually have a strong wish for it to become perfect, at least better!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[draconus]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Nah! It's not hate to be honest. Cfrag actually have a strong wish for it to become perfect, at least better!

We all do

I just can't deny I have fun with CA, even in VR, from time to time.

Edited May 1 by draconus

[MAXsenna]

We all do
I just can't deny I have fun with CA, even in VR, from time to time.

One should just make a huge transparent sphere, and have multiple projectors on the outside. Then you can pop your head out of a tank.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Silver_Dragon]

14 hours ago, cfrag said:

Thank you @NineLine for that vote of confidence for CA. I don't share your opinion when it comes to CA being of decent value in its current form, but opinions differ. When compared to all your other products (except perhaps the Hawk, that I also own), it IMHO tarnishes your (ED's) stellar reputation: It (CA) doesn't work in VR - at all. DCS is THE VR killer app, there are no better apps in VR space than DCS. And CA breaks it. Then, entering a CA unit needlessly breaks DCS's entire UI metaphor. That makes CA look really low-quality to me.
DCS is famous for exact physics modelling. I can take a Leo II Tank in CA, drive it downhill, and have it exceed 240 km/h. Then, hurtling at ridiculous speeds that could make sports cars green with envy,  that Leo can be stopped dead in it's track by a slender 3 inch thick birch tree. And there's a lot more that should never have passed that module's release QA. IMHO, CA does not pass my DCS quality expectations, and it hasn't for several years.

I'm not here to complain - and I also think that very few people would earnestly claim that CA is a decent value in its present form. I'm looking forward to the day that it does, though, and you speaking for CA here makes me hopeful that that day may come. 

None vehicle on DCS World has realistic but all vehicles on DCS come from LOMAC times has over simplified... specialy with has none has a track / wheel phisics or suspension, transmission, engines or realistic crunk as WW2 airplanes, same situation with your damage model and armour. None of them has build on the core of DCS and CA never was planned to make them. We need remember with the player always put all vehicles on situations with drive by terrains never prepared by a tank.... as drive down by a stepped downhill or intent cross a building. The terrain has on the same situation as the "indestructible adamantium trees, fences and walls", never coded to break with a vehicle hit them.

The talked Wags plans to a "tank module" will change them on a future, but I dont expected with the ED team improve CA to a realistic tank simulator, that will maintain simplified and make some improvements, but not more.

[f15e]

On 4/29/2024 at 8:25 PM, GEIST said:

With the latest developments in server tech, especially looking at star citizen which developed a working server meshing technology I think a lot more is possible. Now that it’s proven technology that this works I am sure this can be implemented in dcs as well. 
 

That would mean that you could indeed have a dedicated server focussed on first person/ground mode which will have a high fidelity map loaded… maybe a single city or village in full fidelity. Now all of this would be shared with the DCS main server but only loaded when you enter that servers area, otherwise just important data like unit positions Are shared between the servers.

a plane would probably never enter the high fidelity zone and always see the more low-res version of the city but with all units at the correct position. A helicopter might enter the server to load/unload troops but will only be part of that hi-res city once it’s really close to it. Once it leaves and returns back to base it would join the main server again.

Depending on the map that would be awesome if you could have a few designated hi-res areas that can be shared between the 2 modules and could make for some incredible JTAC coop gameplay.

You kinda forgot that star citizen had billions of dollars poured into it and they also have the dev team 1000x times bigger than ED. It is definitely possible but a large scale mission involving infantry, planes, helicopters etc would require less spaghetti code 

[JCTherik]

It would be really interesting to have DCS straight up integrated with Arma. Two completely separate games but sharing the same map and environment and mirroring the movements of units.

The ground units in DCS could still be fully DCS units in every way, but their behavior mirroring whatever's happening in some Arma match, and vice versa.

That way if you pick up a bunch of ground guys in Huey in DCS, your friend in Arma could hop into a Huey in Arma, you'd fly him somewhere else and drop him off.

The hard part would be to make the maps be the same topology and shape, the buildings, trees and other obstacles would have to match closely.

[cfrag]

25 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

Two completely separate games but sharing the same map

Good idea, but bad pre-conditions: the biggest Arma maps are some 400 sq km in size. The smallest DCS map is some 280'000 40'000 (Channel) sq km (other maps, e.g. SA are much bigger: SA clocks in at 3'100'000 sq km, Caucasus at 280'000, Syria at 450'000, Kola 1'350'000). That's why these games are completely separate. Their game engines are built for completely different tasks. You can't link one to the other else units constantly fall off the smaller map, often never enter them.

Edited May 7 by cfrag

[Mars Exulte]

On 4/29/2024 at 2:25 PM, GEIST said:

especially looking at star citizen

 Star Citizen is not something anybody should strive to emulate, and you reaaaaally just lost a lot of credibility there.

 

On 4/29/2024 at 2:25 PM, GEIST said:

which developed a working server meshing technology I think a lot more is possible

MMOs with instanced servers (which is what SC does) that communicate with each other is nothing new.

On 4/29/2024 at 2:25 PM, GEIST said:

Now that it’s proven technology that this works I am sure this can be implemented in dcs as well. 

 Again, nothing new.

On 4/29/2024 at 10:30 PM, Devil 505 said:

DCS World was not designed entirely for flying, hence the title Digital Combat Simulator.

Ah, you're one of those. And yeah, this is first and foremost a flight sim engine. For evidence I submit the entire game and how ONLY aircraft are remotely fleshed out. Being able to hop into a poorly modeled than and drive it around doesn't change that. It is a flight sim with some really half baked stuff tacked on.

 

CAN that all be expanded? Yes. The question is ''is it likely to be done properly, and will it add significantly enough to what we already have to be worth the effort?'' This is much more of a gray area leaning toward ''no''. Fps and vehicle sims are equally complex as aircraft, requiring large investiture of resources, and at the end of the day these don't mesh well together as part of a video game (which is what this is).

In short infantry and vehicles are tactical assets (focused on individual battles and very micro in scope) whereas as aircraft are strategic assets (focused on the wider theater and ranging across hundreds of miles). They do not mesh well as a video game, when a single A-10 can carpet bomb an entire town and kill dozens of players on the ground, or snipe them with Mavericks from beyond effective visual range, the people on the ground will not think that is fun. And yeah yeah ''DCS grognards blah blah'' even in this community the number of people who will not get frustrated getting repeatedly killed by things they can't fight back against is very small.

On 4/29/2024 at 10:30 PM, Devil 505 said:

I would love to see where you find your stats on the above statement.  Just because there are a handful of trolls that do not want it or think it will be a disaster loosely based off of other failed ventures

 Common sense and prior experience. It's not about failed ventured either. It has been done before and it doesn't end up being FUN for the majority of people. Take Arma, ignoring all other factors, jets are too fast and too powerful and the theater too limited for jets to be involved outside of tightly controlled circumstances because it very quickly starts to suck for everyone there. Even helos have to be rigidly limited in their scope in a given mission to keep it from getting out of whack. That is because thESE are strategic assets with disproportionately large amounts of power and capability compared to what they're fighting. This will always be an issue because ground units cannot start hundreds of miles from the objective and take various routes. The aircraft will ALWAYS know approximately where to look for them.

On 4/29/2024 at 10:30 PM, Devil 505 said:

tells me your you lack confidence in ED to bring the same standards to another area of the sim.  

 This isn't a church, blind faith has nothing to do with any of this.

[Devil 505]

48 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

Ah, you're one of those.

If you have been around since day one like I have with Eagle Dynamics and followed their road maps, interviews, and posts, your ignorance would be kept in check.  Just because there is not a fleshed-out version of combined arms or armored modules yet does not mean this has not been on their road map since the early days.  Technology has been a huge limiting factor of what they could achieve to the level they want to achieve it at until recently.  Clearly the super carrier and combined arms are tangible pieces of proof flying is not the only thing they have focused on or wanted to focus on. 

DCS has always been focused on mil-sim realism.  Why is it the war thunder players have not flocked in droves to DSC?  Simple, it is a study sim requiring patience and dedication to appreciate and enjoy.  Why do Call of Duty and Arma players not gravitate towards Ready or Not or Ground Branch? It is a tactics driven, more realistic simulation of firearms and strategy combined with teamwork simulation.  Not a Call of Duty or arcade like experience.  The example of an A-10 carpet bombing and entire town full of hostiles is not the best example.  Could it be done?  Sure.  But the crowd that gravitates towards DCS will not set up scenarios that mimic that of the former mentioned games.  It takes away the mil-sim experience we are seeking that has not truly been offered to the public.  I feel people like you underestimate the type of players that use DCS as their primary platform.  

Good example.  The same convo took place years ago when we mentioned cargo and troop-carrying aircraft.  There were a lot of similar posts like the ones above trashing the ideas and saying those aircraft would never work, no one is here to play DCS and fly cargo.  They said it does not have its place in a combat flight sim and no one would buy them.  Now take a look at the Chinook, look at the hype on the C-130 mod by Anubis and look how many are waiting to purchase the official C-130 mod coming out.  Bottom line, like all other modules, if it is not your cup of tea, do not buy it.  That does not mean it will not be mine or someone else's.  People who truly appreciate this platform do not want to see it limited to any one specific role.  The more you bring a live digital combat environment to DCS, the better it will grow for a multitude of mil-sim players.

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

 Common sense and prior experience. It's not about failed ventured either. It has been done before and it doesn't end up being FUN for the majority of people.

You really answered this one yourself. Arma is an arcade experience.  It is not mil-sim by any stretch of the imagination.  So technically, no it has not been done before which is why I am such a proponent of this.  If no one ever tries to push the envelope, especially when facing criticism, we never achieve anything great.  What is out there now is no fun because it takes on push of a button to ruin the day for 50 people below.  It does not take into effect real life issues such as weapons jams, weigh of gear, limited ammo for certain operations, logistics, fuel consumption and distance for air support, ect....  These are all things ED could and I feel will eventually tackle with much more precision than any other sim out there. 

The time it takes for someone to learn the A-10, Hornet, or Viper, and apply those munitions and tactics accurately requires some significant investment.  Takes time just to learn to fly them properly and get to the target area, especially when searching for small arms on the ground.  This is what makes DCS and experience, not some game.  It would be no different on the ground for people seeking the same experience from a first-person perspective.  The guy's upstairs I think will appreciate this more as will the players who want to take up arms or armored modules on the ground. Again, trying to compare current sims to DCS and their future state is not an accurate portrayal of what ED is capable of.

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

This isn't a church, blind faith has nothing to do with any of this.

I agree with this statement.  It is not blind faith I have in Eagle Dynamics.  It is their commitment to the customer and the products they have already provided us with that generates this faith they could pull off armored modules and a first-person experience.  Why to bring religion into DCS though, that is a first I have seen on the forums.     

[cfrag]

12 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

your ignorance would be kept in check. 

Let's try and keep it civil - we are all friends here, and we all have the same goal: make DCS more fun, increase popularity and make it more successful.

While I have my own reservation wrt "FPS DCS", let's try and analyze the proposition along the axis of "imaginable - practicable - profitable" so we can separate out some of the probable issues:

Imaginable - a definite yes. And more than that, if we put an Igla or Stinger MANPAD on the map and fire up CA, we can even get a current 'state of the art' snapshot. There are other points that imaginable at this point, and that personally I'd be happy to see: "DCS Marine" - where we get to drive boats, ships, hovercraft, submarines etc - maybe even scuba and enter a pirated ship to re-capture it, "DCS Base Builder" where players command a base and build up infrastructure, and much more. There's no limit to what we can imagine at this stage.

Practical - here we narrow down the funnel from Imaginable and add the constraint of "today": is today's technology able to deliver what we imagined. For an FPS DCS in my view the answer is 'yes and no'. 'Yes' when we look at the facts: the above mentioned Igla soldier proves that it can be done (image taken from marianas island, see miz attached:

When we compare that with the experience of any contemporary run-of-the-mill shooter, we'd have to admit that an important detail is missing: fidelity of the environs: I personally deem the FPS experience today as being inferior, and think that if the level of detail is cranked up by a factor of 10, it could work. Now, since we need to increase the level of detail (density) by a factor of 10, the map's density needs to be increased in detail by X * Y = 10 * 10 = 100. Is it practical with today's technology? I believe with AI helping out massively, this could be done in a couple of years, but not today. Syria map is already large (from a CPU resource point of view). Jacking it up by two orders of magnitude will not be practical by today's standards. 

Profitable - this is the big unknown. The points raised by @Mars Exulte can be serious impediments here: strategic units do not play well with tactical units (the same can be said the the "DCS Marine" idea I mentioned above - which I'm still attached to )  - meaning that even if we clear the practicability hurdle we may end up with a turd game-wise. If we can't integrate on-foot soldiers routinely (i.e. the majority of missions on an MP server must have something fun and important to do for foot soldiers as well as helicopters and fixed-wings) we might as well separate these and sell them individually as they are now. Independent of how much fun these are, the investment currently would be phenomenal: cranking up map fidelity by 100 (i.e. filling the map with stuff) is going to be highly cost intensive, to a point where I suspect that investors will balk - they probably won't see a clear path as to how this investment will yield significantly more than, for example, investing in a new model like the F-22 or similarly flashy item that does not require risky financial exposure. If you can't find financial backing, you can't proceed with your idea

So: Imaginable: definitely - Practical: perhaps in a few years - Profitable: unknown for the future, not today.

FPS in Marianas.miz

[Silver_Dragon]

Some points.... Meanwhile ED dont build specific Vehicles and FPS teams, that has only a complete no sense. The vehicle funtionality need build from the scratchs (Phisics, movement, systems, weapons, armour engine, etc) at same level to a Aircraft or helo of DCS World.... and that has noting to do with ARMA, SC, etc.... has more near to a SB equivalent on realism levels, and as Wags has talked, move to build only on the "rumored" M1 Abrams vehicle module, will take years to build the construction blocks and after make a feasible module.

The same with the FPS... the scale will be outside of any plans actualy and only has a very limited movements on make human 3d models more realistic (skeletal, animations, behaviors), but that has none as a feasible system. We have comparatives on a very old system with need redone and actualy has no plans to make them (Wags talk about them), don expected a "magic wand" about them on many, many years.

And about the level of detail, if actualy the 3rd parties was problems on map perfomance, imagine the problem to make realistic buildins to make a FPS feasible.... and make a avenue, street, base at that same level of detail as some of actual FPS...(The nighmare).

[=475FG= Dawger]

22 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

 

You really answered this one yourself. Arma is an arcade experience.  It is not mil-sim by any stretch of the imagination.  So technically, no it has not been done before which is why I am such a proponent of this.  If no one ever tries to push the envelope, especially when facing criticism, we never achieve anything great.  What is out there now is no fun because it takes on push of a button to ruin the day for 50 people below.  It does not take into effect real life issues such as weapons jams, weigh of gear, limited ammo for certain operations, logistics, fuel consumption and distance for air support, ect....  These are all things ED could and I feel will eventually tackle with much more precision than any other sim out there. 

 

I find ARMA 3 and DCS very similar animals. They are as arcade or as mil-sim as you want them to be. Everything you mention above is available in ARMA via mod much like mods really make DCS MP something much better than "vanilla".

A purposeful marriage of the two titles would be something incredible. ARMA really falls down when it comes to everything aerial and DCS really falls down with everything ground based.

There wouldn't be much for the 4th Gen fighters to do in an ARMA fight but if the two companies collaborated on a map that both titles could use simultaneously, it would be truly amazing.

Flying an airstrike for friendlies who are humans you can talk to and see on the ground would be an amazing experience. 

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

There wouldn't be much for the 4th Gen fighters to do in an ARMA fight but if the two companies collaborated on a map that both titles could use simultaneously, it would be truly amazing.

While this sounds fun at first blush, I'm desperately trying to think of a mission where this cohesion could be kept up for any significant amount of time. The pilot(s) move at 1000km/h, the foot soldiers at less than 10. Let's say the entire mission's duration is 1 hour:

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Flying an airstrike for friendlies who are humans you can talk to and see on the ground would be an amazing experience. 

I agree. Question is: what kind of interaction do both parties (foot soldiers and pilots) have the remaining 59 minutes of the hour they play 'together'? That's where I think the big challenge is going to be - it's not difficult to imagine the one instant where both come together; as mission designer I'm wondering how it is possible to create a mission where all players have a sustained common fun experience. It's difficult enough to create a mission where fixed-wings and helicopters have meaningful interplay. Infantry? Maybe - occasionally - with rotor-wings. But not sustained gameplay. Fixed wings with infantry? For a few seconds at most, definitely not sustained, no common gameplay. And if both only meet for a few seconds every hour, IMHO that's not meaningful at all, and can better be simulated by AI. 

 

Edited May 12 by cfrag

[Mars Exulte]

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

If you have been around since day one

 I've been here since they were individual modules that could not play together. Before DCS World existed.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

like I have with Eagle Dynamics and followed their road maps, interviews, and posts

 I have seen all the same stuff, and am keenly aware of the issues that have cropped up over the last twenty years with those same ''road maps''. 

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

 Just because there is not a fleshed-out version of combined arms or armored modules yet does not mean this has not been on their road map

 It's been discussed for 10+ years minimum. There are very clear reasons why it hasn't happened yet (and may not ever). See previous comments about the resources required to do it properly vs its actual utility and fun factor when merged together. If you have to separate them into isolated sandboxes that don't play together, it's not worth doing, and mixing them has very real issues to overcome.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

Technology has been a huge limiting factor

 It has indeed for a lot of it, but technology is not the barrier to doing this. Practicality is.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

Clearly the super carrier

 Is directly related to improving the naval flying experience... you're not commanding the ship. It's fancy ATC and ground crews.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

combined arms are tangible pieces of proof flying is not the only thing they have focused on

 Combined arms is not and has never been focused on, thus it being so half baked. That can and should be improved, but it doesn't change the fact the core flight Sim environment and people on the ground will not readily mesh together without serious issue. This ain't a WWII environ, these planes have long range optics and guided precision munitions. A tank cannot readily hide in the pushes to escape roving jagers.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

DCS has always been focused on mil-sim realism.  Why is it the war thunder players have not flocked in droves to DSC?

 They get their appetite whetted and come here for more. That doesn't change the fact WT pop vastly outnumbers DCS. It's irrelevant for the topic we're discussing regardless.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

You really answered this one yourself. Arma is an arcade experience.  It is not mil-sim by any stretch of the imagination.

 Arma is infantry centric, but yes, it leans far more into simulation territory than the majority of shooters.

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

So technically, no it has not been done before

 Yes, it has. Arma is A example not the only one. It's also irrelevant the fidelity of the simulation, the basic principle doesn't change even if they're all on rails sans physics. Look here:

Big flying thing soar overhead. Big flying thing drop many explodey bombs and destroy entire town. Little squishy man on ground rage because no can fight back. Alternatively, big flying thing you can't see rips off missile from 40 miles away. Soft squishy man on ground rage because no can fight back.

 

Fidelity has zero to do with this core experience in the video game, and how few people will enjoy that. Yes, some do and will roll with it. But it is not that simple to monetise a profitable game that 90% of people will not play. Again, it is and has always been possible, it hasn't been done to a large extent because most people won't like that gameplay loop.

The question is ''will this work well enough and enough people utilise it to justify pouring tens of millions of dollars into it making assets, infantry physics, vehicle physics, licensing, etc etc etc?''

On 5/11/2024 at 2:58 PM, Devil 505 said:

Why to bring religion into DCS though, that is a first I have seen on the forums.     

Because gamers and zealots have a lot in common.

Edited May 12 by Mars Exulte

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I find ARMA 3 and DCS very similar animals. They are as arcade or as mil-sim as you want them to be. Everything you mention above is available in ARMA via mod much like mods really make DCS MP something much better than "vanilla".

A purposeful marriage of the two titles would be something incredible. ARMA really falls down when it comes to everything aerial and DCS really falls down with everything ground based.

There wouldn't be much for the 4th Gen fighters to do in an ARMA fight but if the two companies collaborated on a map that both titles could use simultaneously, it would be truly amazing.

Flying an airstrike for friendlies who are humans you can talk to and see on the ground would be an amazing experience. 

Diferent engines, diferent coding and diferent market, has none to do on them.

[Devil 505]

5 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

I've been here since they were individual modules that could not play together. Before DCS World existed.

I too have been with them for this long.  You and I going back and forth on this subject is honestly pointless.  I say we call this battle a draw and leave it to ED to figure out.  I am not saying you do not have any valid points for the record.  I will admit, maybe I am a little to optimistic for such a thing to take place in DCS World, but one can dream.  

I will tell you 40 years ago I started playing F-19 Stealth fighter with my old man on an IMB 286 where I had to use DOS to get my sims started.  I went from floppy disks to hard disks to CD to digital.  If you were to try to convince me all those years ago, and even during the Janes days, that I would be sitting at my computer with a device on my head that placed me in the cockpit (VR) of all my favorite fighters and bombers, I would have responded the same way you did above.  But growing old age has provided me the wisdom to see that technology and experience is advancing at such a rapid pace, who knows where DCS might be 5 or 10 years down the road.  Wherever it winds up, one thing is for certain, I doubt either one of us will be disappointed. 

See you in the virtual Mars. 

Edited May 13 by Devil 505

[=475FG= Dawger]

13 hours ago, cfrag said:

While this sounds fun at first blush, I'm desperately trying to think of a mission where this cohesion could be kept up for any significant amount of time. The pilot(s) move at 1000km/h, the foot soldiers at less than 10. Let's say the entire mission's duration is 1 hour:

I agree. Question is: what kind of interaction do both parties (foot soldiers and pilots) have the remaining 59 minutes of the hour they play 'together'? That's where I think the big challenge is going to be - it's not difficult to imagine the one instant where both come together; as mission designer I'm wondering how it is possible to create a mission where all players have a sustained common fun experience. It's difficult enough to create a mission where fixed-wings and helicopters have meaningful interplay. Infantry? Maybe - occasionally - with rotor-wings. But not sustained gameplay. Fixed wings with infantry? For a few seconds at most, definitely not sustained, no common gameplay. And if both only meet for a few seconds every hour, IMHO that's not meaningful at all, and can better be simulated by AI. 

 

 

Just for the sake of the argument, I will accept your premise as correct for a moment. 
DCS would be a world’s better experience if the ground units were all ARMA AI. 

That, alone, would make the collaboration worthwhile. 
 

However, the premise is not correct. There is a mountain of teamwork and coordination opportunity in a simulation of 3-D battle space. 
 

Imagine an infantry unit, platoon sized, tasked with air assault of a small objective. Assume the enemy is a peer force with similar force composition and capability. 
 

All components of the human controlled force must be coordinated for success to be possible. Does it mean the CAP fighter might fly the entire duration in a BARCAP track? Maybe, but if he isn’t there the enemy strikers will have free reign of the airspace. 
Just getting troops to the objective in contested space would be an exciting challenge. Does it mean every pilot is constantly engaged? No. Neither are the ground pounders. However, just because troops move at a fraction of a percent of a fast mover doesn’t mean the battle moves any faster than the infantry. The fast mover may be hauling bombs to the same spot on the map over and over. 
 

Having flown a lot of multiplayer in various titles and played a lot of ARMA and other titles in organized units, I can tell you there is a tremendous opportunity for a collaboration between DCS and ARMA to create an engaging multiplayer environment for scenario gameplay. 
 

WWII and Cold War scenarios would be epic if the two titles could operate on the same map. Modern precision weapons might not be quite as engaging for the ground troops but I am sure there are plenty of folks that would enjoy JTAC ops with humans or even ARMA AI targets instead of static guy with an AK standing upright in a field. 

[draconus]

On 5/12/2024 at 11:12 AM, cfrag said:

When we compare that with the experience of any contemporary run-of-the-mill shooter, we'd have to admit that an important detail is missing: fidelity of the environs: I personally deem the FPS experience today as being inferior, and think that if the level of detail is cranked up by a factor of 10, it could work.

I can't agree. You purposely made it look like XGA image, that's cheap shot. And I said earlier, if we stay at current level of details, it can work without massively impacting performance and doesn't involve redesign of the maps. You can add objects to the area of interest if needed. And it obviously is not meant to compete with other FPS titles. It's a different beast with different goals in mind, same as CA. It's the same argument as "why DCS environment doesn't look like other civil flight sim?" - because it focuses on other aspects and saves computing power for better uses than just the looks.

14 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

This ain't a WWII environ...

It's not? Why? We have 8 planes, 2 maps and an asset pack for this period.

On 5/11/2024 at 8:38 PM, Mars Exulte said:

a single A-10 can carpet bomb an entire town and kill dozens of players on the ground

Good luck with that, unless it's a single road with 10 houses in line.

 

Not all missions have to be forced to include air assets. Even when they do you can do it more realistically than a simple man slaughter. Aircraft we have in DCS are rarely tasked with seeking & destroying infantry and for sure don't use smart weapons against small moving infantry groups. Unless it's CAS they have much more important jobs usually. There also can be MANPADs or other SHORADs. There can be air assets on your side too.

It's not game over when your soldier dies. Unless it was Rambo or Commando, you can take control of the other soldier and continue their tasks.

[cfrag]

39 minutes ago, draconus said:

You purposely made it look like XGA image, that's cheap shot.

Please do not assign motives to me, especially if you suspect bad faith -- that's unworthy of you. I purposefully added the miz for anyone interested to try for themselves. And I chose a map and location that IMHO shows DCS at its best for this purpose. I took a screenshot and pasted it to give an easy example, ripped directly from my screen (my DCS is set up for VR, so not maxed out for quality). And I think you can easily set the record straight, and do us all a favor: run the included miz, crank up the quality as far as you can, take contol of the the Igla soldier, turn slightly to the right so it faces down the road as I did, take a screenshot and post it. I cropped the screenshot to make it look better, you are of course free to post the entire screen. I'm absolutely willing to accept that (yours) as a snapshot of the state of the art. My point wasn't to rain on CA (and you know that I'm disappointed at its current state), it was quite the opposite: to show that it is indeed possible with today's DCS to go FPS. There was no hidden motive, that cheap shot was entirely yours, dear @draconus, and uncalled for.

52 minutes ago, draconus said:

I said earlier, if we stay at current level of details, it can work without massively impacting performance and doesn't involve redesign of the maps.

You did assert that, and I believe that I asserted that that such a map would make DCS the laughing stock for any rabid FPS player who comes to DCS to play FPS. You and I merely disagree wrt the necessity of visual splendor for a good FPS experience. Let's leave it at that, I'm sure as time goes by, DCS will improve sufficiently in that regard-

56 minutes ago, draconus said:

Not all missions have to be forced to include air assets.

I absolutely agree. The question then would be: why run a (primarily) air sim to do FPS stuff? Wouldn't that be akin to using a chain saw for surgery? It may have its place there, yes, but usually you'd use those tools that are better suited to do the job. And I think we've been down this road before. The upshot is that you believe that there are enough missions that mix boots and wings well to warrant expansion in that market, I'm not convinced - yet I would love to be proven wrong. 

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

There is a mountain of teamwork and coordination opportunity in a simulation of 3-D battle space. 

Perhaps... I'm looking for an engaging mission for everyone involved. I'm obviously of limited vision, since I have significant difficulties to envision how such a mission would engage all players, how they build a cohesive team, and have fun together. Look, I want this to be true. I simply can't get myself to see how I would put together such a mission, what would be involved, and how to prevent that this becomes a lop-sided affair with part of the team being bored out of their skulls. Example: I once thought that player-controlled door gunner's for Hueys are a great idea, and wrote an entire MP mission around that idea. Boy was I wrong about how much fun those gunner positions are. Feedback was that nobody wants to be a door gunner, all want to be pilot (the mission is here, and it's a fun mission - just not for door gunners). Why? Because as a door gunner you have next to no agency over the mission. And I fear something similar holds true for foot soldiers mixing in with wings. The concept is Dynamite - on paper; it's not so great in reality: everyone wants to fly, no-one wants to hug the mud and become target practice. 

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I can tell you there is a tremendous opportunity for a collaboration between DCS and ARMA to create an engaging multiplayer environment for scenario gameplay. 

I believe you when you say that you are convinced of that. I'm looking at that from a mission creator's perspective, and although I'm sceptic, I'd love to get insight how this can work. I believe that we all see the potential. I simply can't see my way to unlocking it, to make it accessible in a multiplayer mission, to effectively mix wings and boots in a fun, engaging and lasting way. And again, I'd love to be proven wrong, as this would exponentially increase the scope of missions that I can create and play with my group.

[=475FG= Dawger]

6 minutes ago, cfrag said:

The concept is Dynamite - on paper; it's not so great in reality: everyone wants to fly, no-one wants to hug the mud and become target practice. 

I believe you when you say that you are convinced of that. I'm looking at that from a mission creator's perspective, and although I'm sceptic, I'd love to get insight how this can work. I believe that we all see the potential. I simply can't see my way to unlocking it, to make it accessible in a multiplayer mission, to effectively mix wings and boots in a fun, engaging and lasting way. And again, I'd love to be proven wrong, as this would exponentially increase the scope of missions that I can create and play with my group.

Currently, many ARMA milsim groups have a flight component. Those slots are limited and everyone who joins understands that membership in flight entails certain sacrifices. Many operations, all the flight component does is transport missions, ferrying troops and supplies in rotor wing. Fixed wing is pretty limited, sometimes due to map size. Lots of aviation missions in ARMA are limited by the mission designer because ARMA makes CAS too easy.

With DCS level aviation, things would change greatly. A bigger map would mean the ground fight could be far away from the available airbase. The enemy (human or AI) could have extensive air defenses. Fixed wing air strikes using humans dropping dumb bombs with CCIP would add an incredible level of excitement for everyone. Guys in the air would love attacking ground assets that move and hide, whether human or ARMA AI. Guys on the ground would experience the love/hate relationship with air power as it sometimes saves them and sometimes wipes them out.

Will everyone be constantly engaged all the time? No. However, that is a lot more realistic than a solo guy flying around plinking ground targets in DCS with no thought to teamwork and mutual support.

I see it as the best of both worlds for short duration scenarios (2-3 hours) where organized groups man units assigned to them and operate as a team. It certainly would be a disaster if slots were a free for all and/or the time scope was long or unlimited.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

The question then would be: why run a (primarily) air sim to do FPS stuff?

For fun, because I've seen what DCS is capable of, I like its take on  realism, because I've had fun with CA and it seems so close to FPS, because we have powerful ME and it doesn't need much effort to make it.

[cfrag]

6 minutes ago, draconus said:

For fun,

"Because we can?" I guess that's one way of looking at it.

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

because I've seen what DCS is capable of, I like its take on  realism, because I've had fun with CA and it seems so close to FPS [emphasis cfrag]

Now you are just goading me . Allow me to point to the 240 km/h Leo II, or the aircraft carrier that stops on a dime. Vehicle physics outside of aircraft in DCS need major improvements.

9 minutes ago, draconus said:

because we have powerful ME

You surely know how to push my buttons. "Undo", "Multi-object select".

10 minutes ago, draconus said:

it doesn't need much effort to make it.

And that is where you and I strongly disagree. Just getting vehicle physics to tolerable levels would be non-trivial. Let's ignore all naval units (so no 'free pirated ship' missions, but maybe a 'capture the oil rig). Upgrading ground AI for FPS level of play? That's another big block. We disagree on "scenery detail", so let's ignore maps (which I consider a gigantic investment). Getting some of the required gear for infantry to a tolerable level (equipment: lets say 4 types of fatigues (2 each for red/blue), men only, 4 side arms, 4 long rifles, 4 heavy weapons, 4 types of grenades, some special equipment, munitions, armor, radio: physics modelling, aural and artwork alone) will be a rather big investment - in my eyes. What constitutes 'not much effort' to you? 5 person years? 10? Where I live, 5 person years are the equivalent of some 500'000 USD. How much effort do you guess it would take to bring CA to an acceptable FPS level of playability? I honestly don't know, but having worked in software (including entertainment) for quite some time, I seriously doubt that we can get it in with anything less than 5 person years (1'000 person days - 5 people working one year on this exclusively), probably a lot more. What's your guess?